If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

HB 1012 An order to retreat

I sent another email to rep appleton with the "gun myth"list. At the same time I invited her to Custer Sportsmans club to shoot with my Sweet Baboo. This was the reply. I underlined the parts I thought were in conflict and highlighted the part I thought was comical. Her "order to retreat" law will cause death one way or another.

From: "Bezon, Donna" <Donna.Bezon@leg.wa.gov>Add sender to Contacts
To: "'msglaigaie
John,
Thank you for the invitation for Rep. Appleton. Starting this week things began rolling at full speed for her with the Legislature starting on Jan 14th., not ending until April. Her schedule is non stop for months. Saying that I have worked for her for almost a decade and know that as much as she appreciates the invitation to the gun range it is not something she would do. I did double check with her.

I know you are opposed to HB1012 and we hope you understand you can come to Olympia and testify against it. As a side note to Gun Ranges Rep. Appleton has been a big supporter of the rights of Gun Ranges in our area. She is also appointed to the Sentencing Guideline Comm., Judicial Conduct Commission, Civil Rights Commission (by two Presidentís). She is all about Civil Rights if you look at her record. If this bill saves one individual from being shot or killed then HB1012 will serve it

My problem with laws like this is they are way too vague. They leave so much up to interpretation that everyone is going to believe in a different standard. Then we make it up to the court to clarify, which means that someone is going to have to be the guinea pig whether they like it or not. I believe if I'm in my home I have nowhere to retreat to, someone else might say that I could run out the back door. I don't really want to have the courts or a jury decide.

RCW 9A.16.050 and 2011 c 336 s 354 are each amended to
5 read as follows:
6 (1) Homicide is also justifiable when committed ((:
7 (1))) in the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband,
8 wife, parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his
9 or her presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to
10 apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to
do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such
12 person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished

17 (2) Homicide shall not be justifiable under this statute if the
p. 1 HB 1012 1 slayer knows or should know that he or she could avoid the necessity of
2 using such force with complete safety by retreating.

I explained to her that the word "should" will become a tool for activist judges who are anti-firearm to punish people unfairly, and that in defense-situations where safety and lives are in the balance "should know" is way too subjective.

Forgetting the ramifications relating to personal and family defense, I also explained how even the rest of the bill without "should know" is dangerous, especially given the recent mass shootings we've had in Oregon and Connecticut. Look at how long police response times are, and look at the issues we've had here with the DOJ review of SPD and the impending DOJ review of KCSO. I asked Donna how she felt if her own family might be saved from becoming victims of a mass shooting by an armed civilian who happened to be nearby, and then if she understood what this bill would do to make that impossible in the future.

Criminals do not follow laws, so trying to force law-abiding people to jump through hoops and literally run away (and possibly die trying) is absurd.

She tried giving me vague statements about how Appleton "supports the right to bear arms" and how this bill doesn't ban guns or take them away. After she became aware that I wasn't going to be blown off by that smoke, she tried arguing with me about bizarre what-if scenarios, that's when I gave her those what-if scenarios that I listed above. Her most common "what-if" scenario was basically a version of the MSM's version of the Trayvon Martin death. She kept insisting this would have no impact on WA's personal defense rules but she would not acknowledge most of my points.

She did eventually concede that the "should know" language is vague and has the potential for judicial abuse, and that others have specifically complained about it. She told me that after Jan 14th when it gets assigned to a committee that after that they may or may not decide to allow a public hearing on the bill and/or might make changes to it.

She kept arguing with me over and over how this bill is OK because Rep. Appleton is a "good person" who is trying to prevent killing and "supports gun rights too."

I live in her district and have met her in Olympia several times working on transportation issues. I just called and talked to Donna and expressed my concern over this bill and assured her I would be watching it closely. Donna said she has been getting quite a number of calls opposing the bill and there is a long uphill battle in front of it.

As a retired career Law Enforcement Officer (Federal Criminal Investigator) and former Judge (Montana) I cringe when reading HB1012.

The bill is written to modify existing law in a manner that is inconsistent with Art 1 Sec 24 WA. State Constitution. The proposed changes also open the law to judicial abuse and misinterpretation. I will oppose this bill with every means at my disposal.

Rest assured that this will be discussed with a large number of people as well as letters to the various media.

I sent another email to rep appleton with the "gun myth"list. At the same time I invited her to Custer Sportsmans club to shoot with my Sweet Baboo. This was the reply. I underlined the parts I thought were in conflict and highlighted the part I thought was comical. Her "order to retreat" law will cause death one way or another.

From: "Bezon, Donna" <Donna.Bezon@leg.wa.gov>Add sender to Contacts
To: "'msglaigaie
John,
Thank you for the invitation for Rep. Appleton. Starting this week things began rolling at full speed for her with the Legislature starting on Jan 14th., not ending until April. Her schedule is non stop for months. Saying that I have worked for her for almost a decade and know that as much as she appreciates the invitation to the gun range it is not something she would do. I did double check with her.

I know you are opposed to HB1012 and we hope you understand you can come to Olympia and testify against it. As a side note to Gun Ranges Rep. Appleton has been a big supporter of the rights of Gun Ranges in our area. She is also appointed to the Sentencing Guideline Comm., Judicial Conduct Commission, Civil Rights Commission (by two Presidentís). She is all about Civil Rights if you look at her record. If this bill saves one individual from being shot or killed then HB1012 will serve it

Feel free to contact me to check on the status or for information regarding IF we get a public hearing you could attend.

The response to her "if it saves one life..." drivel should be "what if it costs one innocent life, because they don't take the necessary response to defend themselves for fear of being charged with this law?" or that it appears she's trying to protect criminals from being shot.

I called Donna and asked why the bill was being introduced and she immediately began saying that it wouldn't limit my ability to protect me and my family.... So I cut her off and said "why is this nessecary?"

Now this is what she said

So if you're in your car, and you see something and you call 911 and the dispatcher tells you to stay away you won't be a vigilante

And so I asked "why, is there a particular problem with this scenario in Washington?

And Donna said,

Well judges have requested this, and police officers have requested this so that a bunch of vigilantes aren't taking the law into their own hands"

I guess those vigilantes are out of control in North Kitsap... (I didn't say that on the phone btw)

Anyway I asked finally why the language allowing one to stand their ground was being eliminated from the law under Appletons bill, and guess what? She told me that "nothing was being removed from the law at all"

Btw which judges and police officers want that law modified I wonder? Probably a very small sample compared to the number of Judges and cops actually serving right now

Last edited by EMNofSeattle; 12-27-2012 at 06:01 PM.

they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

Donna said she has been getting quite a number of calls opposing the bill and there is a long uphill battle in front of it.

Sounds like they have made a decision already and the number of Voters who oppose it do not count.

Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle

Gee someone is mad today....

I called Donna and asked why the bill was being introduced and she immediately began saying that it wouldn't limit my ability to protect me and my family.... So I cut her off and said "why is this nessecary?"
And Donna said,
Well judges have requested this, and police officers have requested this so that a bunch of vigilantes aren't taking the law into their own hands"

Btw which judges and police officers want that law modified I wonder? Probably a very small sample compared to the number of Judges and cops actually serving right now

I agree, inquiring minds want to know. This sounds like a request for information situation.

17 (2) Homicide shall not be justifiable under this statute if the
p. 1 HB 1012 1 slayer knows or should know that he or she could avoid the necessity of
2 using such force with complete safety by retreating.

You are never completely safe. You could be struck by lightning while retreating even if the attacker doesn't pursue you.

I stubbed my toe just this morning. So much for being completely safe today.

This means that in the cold light of Day, after the fact, when the armchair QBs look everything over, using all the time in the world, if, and I say IF they decide there was an avenue of escape, you go to jail. Not during the event, which may only be seconds, but after the event, when everyone is safe in the chair

I should tell her that I live in an upstairs apartment with only one exit, and that this bill would guarantee that I would go to prison. If she is getting angry with all the calls then that means she might get the hint that this is wrong of her, I see the bill as Californians trying to get a anti-protection foothold in Washington. The castle doctrine should still stand ground, see what I did there :P.

I prefer stand your ground.

Last edited by ApacheBunny; 12-28-2012 at 05:44 PM.

Whoever thought switching to your sidearm was faster than reloading your rifle has never been hit in the **** with a swinging barrel.

I see the bill as Californians trying to get a anti-protection foothold in Washington.

Yup. One of the first things people almost invariably do after fleeing a hellhole is to try to make their new home feel more familiar. After all, it was all the idiots who made life hellish back in the old neighborhood, not them!

Well she is trying to sell it off as a way to save everyone (let them have what they came in for and hopefully they wont kill me and rape my wife and possibly kill my kids steal all the valuables) pretty much what this bill does. Though it is pretty obvious that it is going to take away most of the capacity to defend yourself in your own home. I am gonna have to get off my lazy arse and call her up and tell her that anywhere I would be able to retreat to would just be the bedroom which has no door lock and tell her and that duty to retreat will not save the person who decides to break into my home.

Whoever thought switching to your sidearm was faster than reloading your rifle has never been hit in the **** with a swinging barrel.

The room farthest from my doors is the room where I have my reloading, gunsafe, easily acquired handguns and shotgun that will not fit in the small safe and the big safe is full. So...that being said It would work out very good for the bad guy if I should retreat.

Where to hide is not the problem. Sherry Appleton is trying to be my mother. She was upset about poor travon martin and does not want to see this happen again. Tough bananas sherry. Your butt works for US and we do not want to share your fear.
Call her, call her again. Get your friends and family to call her, email her, write an actual letter. She must know that the people she works for do not want this.

I sent this over to my uncle who's a Captain in KCSO, he was pretty peeved to hear that Appleton is claiming to have a bunch of LEOs and judges "asking" for this law, so he asked her to publish that list. He also told her he'd be contacting all his higher-ups, friends, and elected officials that he knows to make sure they don't support it. He's a 30+ year veteran of the force who has worked everything from patrol cop, to detective to command and training staff and knows how bad this bill would be for WA.

Alpine, great job. Do you think you could get a copy of the "list" and publish (out them) it here?

I too would like to see this list. And then I would do my best to publish an article about how people who are supposed to protect our rights against the state and tyranny are doing there damnedest to make us defenseless sheep and property of the state.

I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
"Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

He told me he'd send it to me as soon as he gets it and I'll post it here for you guys.

HOWEVER, this Rep. Appleton and her aide Donna might not hand over that list it because it either:
A. does not exist
or
B. it might be insignificant and wind up humiliating her.
or
C. would allow us to contact and/or "out" these people and then she'd be afraid they'd withdraw their support.

Is there a way to do a lawful info. request regarding this if she will not publish the list?
I know it doesn't seem very official, but to me, a list of public officials on the state's payroll who are endorsing a rep.'s bill and that rep is using them as justification for that bill's passage seems like it would benefit the public to be known.

He told me he'd send it to me as soon as he gets it and I'll post it here for you guys.

HOWEVER, this Rep. Appleton and her aide Donna might not hand over that list it because it either:
A. does not exist
or
B. it might be insignificant and wind up humiliating her.
or
C. would allow us to contact and/or "out" these people and then she'd be afraid they'd withdraw their support.

Is there a way to do a lawful info. request regarding this if she will not publish the list?
I know it doesn't seem very official, but to me, a list of public officials on the state's payroll who are endorsing a rep.'s bill and that rep is using them as justification for that bill's passage seems like it would benefit the public to be known.

I personally feel she is talking out her ass.

Let's not forget who gets up and testifies for just about every infringement of rights we get........state costumed agents....They just need the "tools" to keep us safe and do their job. Tools being a code word for destruction of rights supposedly protected by common law or our constitutions.

I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
"Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

He told me he'd send it to me as soon as he gets it and I'll post it here for you guys.

HOWEVER, this Rep. Appleton and her aide Donna might not hand over that list it because it either:
A. does not exist
or
B. it might be insignificant and wind up humiliating her.
or
C. would allow us to contact and/or "out" these people and then she'd be afraid they'd withdraw their support.

Is there a way to do a lawful info. request regarding this if she will not publish the list?
I know it doesn't seem very official, but to me, a list of public officials on the state's payroll who are endorsing a rep.'s bill and that rep is using them as justification for that bill's passage seems like it would benefit the public to be known.

I don't know, are letters to a state rep public record? because that's what we're talking about at this point.

now, if this bill gets to committee, and judges and cops come to testify FOR it then that would be one thing. frankly I think only high ranking police officials who's job is at the pleasure of some extreme left wing mayor like in Seattle for example will come and testify. I doubt any beat cop protected by civil service or a union contract will come and testify FOR this bill.

kind of like the previous assault weapons bill that got to committee, where the Bellevue Chief of Police testified "in her experience" that a civilian AR could be easily converted a full auto weapon (but apparently these machine shops could not easily convert a ban compliant weapon to full auto) I frankly think the only reason she showed was becuase the Bellevue mayor or city council wanted that legislation passed due to ideology.

they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me